Pc Gamers, Do You pirate Your games?

thelordofcheese

Azza wrote: »

I for one feel that if I own a game on one format, I should be able to play it on all formats. The whole concept of platform exclusive games is silly if you ask me. Imagine if you needed multipal DVD players to watch movies from different companies.

I also have no problem pirating games for backup purposes in case I loose or damage a disc.

Ditto cracking games to get around activation limits for games I legally own.

Also where the hell did Microsoft get the nerve to print "do not lend this game" on Gears of War for PC. Kindly F-off I lend this game to who ever I want to lend it to. Again imagine if that was printed on a DVD or book.

Read your EULA, you don't own that game, just one licence for you to use it.
So yeah, they're well within their rights to remind you not to break that contract you agreed to.

Azza

Well if lending is against the EULA I really don't care and I'm not going stop it. Its not that I lend every game I have but I let my house mate play any of my games and vice versa Nor do i see anyone every inforcing that part of it. I don't see it as different as if I let my friends play it on my computer

I have often lent and got the loan of games from friends and I wil continue to do so. I have done it books, movies, newspapers (although I don't ask for them back) etc. Why should games be any different.

Or should I just get my friends to buy the game off me and then when they are finished I buy it back...so then technically I would not be breaking the EULA.

thelordofcheese

Azza wrote: »

I have often lent and got the loan of games from friends and I wil continue to do so. I have done it books, movies, newspapers (although I don't ask for them back) etc. Why should games be any different.

Because they're pieces of software and you agreed to the damn rules when you installed it.
Jesus, it's like taking a job and they complaining when they expect you to work.

Azza

Fine fair enough anytime I want to lend my game to a friend or such I'll sell it to him for €00.01 and then when he is done I'll buy it back for the same low price

And can you honestly honestly tell me you have never lent a DVD or game to a friend at some stage in your life?

thelordofcheese

Azza wrote: »

Fine fair enough anytime I want to lend my game to a friend or such I'll sell it to him for €00.01 and then when he is done I'll buy it back for the same low price

that's also NOT how it works.

Azza wrote: »

And can you honestly honestly tell me you have never lent a DVD or game to a friend at some stage in your life?

If i had i wouldn't be on the internet telling Microsocft of Fuck off for reminding me that i'm breaking the rules i signed up to.

Lend all you want, just stop crying over being reminded that you shouldn't. Also, read at least one EULA/T&C, you'd be surprised at what you're actually agreeing to in some cases.

Azza

Well tell me whats wrong with the scenario I pointed out. Am I not allowed sell on a game to some one I choose and he is then not allowed to sell it on again?

I mean game stores would not be stating that their making almost 50% of there revenue from the second hand sales market if second hand sales where illegal.

Funny you should mention that I read a few EULA's in some manuls I have to hand after reading your postand some games EULA state that lending is prohibited whiles other don't.

thelordofcheese

Azza wrote: »

Well tell me whats wrong with the scenario I pointed out. Am I not allowed sell on a game to some one I choose and he is then not allowed to sell it on again?

I mean game stores would not be stating that their making almost 50% of there revenue from the second hand sales market if second hand sales where illegal.

Find me a store that does 2nd Hand PC games and we'll talk.
Seriously though, rule of thumb console games are ok, PC games aren't. For obvious reasons.
Your original point was about GoW on the PC so i ignored console games.

Azza wrote: »

Funny you should mention that I read a few EULA's in some manuls I have to hand after reading your postand some games EULA state that lending is prohibited whiles other don't.

Split that down for me, how many that didn't prohibit lending were PC games?
I'd be very curious if any PC game allowed lending in it's EULA, the last one i can think of was FreeSpace 2.

MOH

Zeouterlimits wrote: »

But in that case shouldn't you just not play those DRM games at all?
Does the fact that you disagree with the DRM give you permission to pirate it?

But if you've pre-ordered a game, you often don't know if there's DRM on it until you've bought it and installed it. At which point you can't get your money back. Plus you've all the hassle of trying to rid of the damn thing off your system. And you still need to download a cracked exe to play it once you've got rid of the unadvertised DRM.

If companies included in their advertising a warning stating that this game contains a DRM system which may have adverse affects on other software installed on your system, then yes, you'd be aware of it, and could make a decision on whether you wanted to buy it or not.

Gummy Panda

Maybe some companies are sick of PC gamers and are using DRM to push them onto consoles were they make more money.

Looking at a few recent games like fallout 3 & dead space, they all felt made for console. Even Far Cry felt it too.

Has me wondering about the future of pc gaming.

/end RTDH conspiracy mode

MooseJam

thelordofcheese wrote: »

that's also NOT how it works.

so now you're complaining about people lending games , have you nothing better to do with your time :rolleyes:

thebman

This whole your breaking the EULA line of talk seems to willfully ignore that a lot of what is contained in EULA's are against the law in this country and across the EU thanks to European law.

MOH

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Lend all you want, just stop crying over being reminded that you shouldn't. Also, read at least one EULA/T&C, you'd be surprised at what you're actually agreeing to in some cases.

These would be the EULAs that are imposed after you buy and open the software packaging, at which point you can't get your money back?
The legality of the terms of which is, in many cases, dubious at best.

thelordofcheese

MooseJam wrote: »

so now you're complaining about people lending games , have you nothing better to do with your time :rolleyes:

I'm sorry you're a terrible person and evidently not the best at reading comprehension either.

MOH wrote: »

These would be the EULAs that are imposed after you buy and open the software packaging, at which point you can't get your money back?
The legality of the terms of which is, in many cases, dubious at best.

Most companies also have their EULA online, for reading before you buy.

thebman

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Most companies also have their EULA online, for reading before you buy.

Great so all you have to do when is read their minds and know this. Dead handy that is.

http://xkcd.com/501/

Very fitting for this thread.

MooseJam

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm sorry you're a terrible person and evidently not the best at reading comprehension either.

Actually I'm not so terrible, I am sorry however that you aren't a complete person what with that massive chip on your shoulder, I've come across a lot of people on various forums but your case is surely the sadest, a person whose overriding concern in life is whether people comply with EULA's, I shall pray for you my child. That is all.

Dartz

I don't pirate PC games as such... because downloading a 6gig game when you have a 10gig monthly download limit is a pain in the hole.

That said I have a strong aversion to the latest copy-protection schemes being used, such as Secure-ROM, or requiring an internet connection. I have no problem with breaking these just to make my life a little bit easier. The worst is stuff like Bioshock, which requires an activation for each user on a PC. That's stupid and inconvenient.

And didn't stop the pirates.

Hell, I hear people are pirating Spore to avoid having SecureROM on their systems.

K.O.Kiki

So the devs of the World of Goo released the game DRM-free & region-free.
For $20.

...and basked in the glow of a 90% piracy rate.

Kiith

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

So the devs of the World of Goo released the game DRM-free & region-free.
For $20.

...and basked in the glow of a 90% piracy rate.

Proof that DRM encourages piracy i guess :rolleyes:

Blazer

dreamers75 wrote: »

What complete bollox, you buy them only if you need to play them online, like everyone else does.

Exactly...games like COD4/BF series/Quake Wars/Crysis I buy because I know I can play it online and liked it.
I had pirated COD4 but still went out and bought the game because it was a fantastic game and I enjoyed the mp part as well.
Infinity deserved my money for this game.
Ubisoft on the other hand with the crap game Far Cry 2 I also pirated...installed it...played about 3 hours , uninstalled it as I absolutely hated it. Loved the first one which I bought.
It would be a lot better for developers if they released the full game as say time limited demo and if people liked it they have the option of buying it.
I'll gladly play for a game with great replay value like COD4/BF2/BF2142/Dues Ex/Far Cry/ Crysis etc but for crap games like Far Cry 2 not a chance.

death1234567

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

So the devs of the World of Goo released the game DRM-free & region-free.
For $20.

...and basked in the glow of a 90% piracy rate.

The fact that their game is only a 60mb download from a torrent means that its uber-easy to pirate for everyone. Which is a pity because its a great game from a small studio who should be supported.

Also the fact that you couldn't get it in europe didn't help.

Naikon

I don't pirate new games. I only buy decent games to help and provide a bit of well earned cash for the developers.
Games require a lot of resources, so I feel it is not morally correct to download a new game still in circulation.
DRM aside, the developers still need to be awarded for their hard effort, providing the game is good.

I strongly support game developers that port games to non Mico$oft platforms.
I would never pirate games from the likes of id software because of this.
Valve are not getting much from me these days. I can't stand steam anymore tbh.

However I make an exception for out of print games. I have downloaded a torrent version of
both "System Shock" games as these games cannot be obtained anymore.
If I bought them from ebay, the money wouldn't even go to the publisher, let alone the dev team.

RIP Looking glass studios:(

Seifer

I don't pirate games and I never will. For the enjoyment I get out of them the developers deserve maximum reward.
I usually only buy games I've researched well and know I'll like and obviously play a demo if it's available. So it's very rare that I'd regret a purchase.

MooseJam

Most developers are earning wages so it doesn't matter how many units the game sells

Seifer

If a game doesn't sell well the studio might have to let people go or shut down. Then nobody is getting any wage.
Also a lot of studios would have performance bonuses linked to units shipped.

Cy_Revenant

death1234567 wrote: »

Also the fact that you couldn't get it in europe didn't help.

I got it in Europe.

Stev_o

A nice article on indy developers being hurt by pirating thought id share but dont believe everything in it (most notably the 90% rate) dew to the fact there can be several reasons for this but anyway enjoy

2D BOY have posted about the piracy World of Goo has suffered since launch. After Ron Carmel mentioned the figure - 90% - in a comment on RPS this week, the story was picked up across the internet. And it’s shaken a lot of people.


Carmel explains how they reached the dramatic figure.

“first, and most importantly, how we came up with this number: the game allows players to have their high scores reported to our server (it’s an optional checkbox). we record each score and the IP from which it came. we divided the total number of sales we had from all sources by the total number of unique IPs in our database, and came up with about 0.1. that’s how we came up with 90%.”

He then goes on to point out the possible inaccuracies: people installing a legitimate copy on multiple computers (I know I have), dynamic IP addresses, multiple pirated copies behind the same firewall, and people not checking the high score box, all of which could push the figure in either direction. But of course, it’s unlikely it would be that far each way.

Edit: It’s pointed out below that dynamic IP addresses could have a dramatic effect on this figure. I’ve no idea at all, but it would make sense that this could skew the results.

You might assume that the response to this - by any developer, let alone two guys on their own - would be to conclude that some manner of DRM was necessary. 2D BOY used World of Goo as an experiment, deliberately releasing it without any form of DRM, and said they would publish the results. And here they are: a 90% piracy rate. It’s got to hurt. As hypocritical as it may be, I find myself feeling far more angry that people have chosen to acquire this game without paying, than I am when it’s from a large corporation. It shakes my (personal - not the opinion of RPS) belief that DRM is both pointless and damaging. But amazingly, not 2D BOY’s.

Carmel links to Russell Carroll’s article about the 92% piracy rate of Ricochet. This is where that famous, controversial figure appeared, arguing that 1000 pirated copies of a game only represents one lost sale. Carmel continues,

“in our case, we might have even converted more than 1 in a 1000 pirates into legit purchases. either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and there seems to be no difference in the outcomes. we can’t draw any conclusions based on two data points, but i’m hoping that others will release information about piracy rates so that everyone could see if DRM is the waste of time and money that we think it is.”

A remarkable response. But also a rational one. It’s so very impressive to remain rational in the face of learning how many people are taking the game you worked so hard on without giving you any money. It deserves enormous kudos.

thebman

In fairness the 90% rate is immediately complete bollocks when he uses IP addresses as his source of information.

They give out IP addresses (DHCP) to each user on their network on a lease. This lease is for a set period and then the users IP address changes automatically and this can happen earlier if the user restarts their modem. That renders the stats completely useless.

A true test would be to give each retail a copy a unique code sent to the server and allow the same one to be registered multiple times. Count how many duplicates you have and you have the accurate statistics.

Their way is complete bollocks. I work for a website and we have enough trouble identifying people from IP addresses when we need to. In fact it would completely skew the statistics and it makes me think they were going out of their way to skew the figures towards piracy being rampant.

Stev_o

brim4brim wrote: »

In fairness the 90% rate is immediately complete bollocks when he uses IP addresses as his source of information.

They give out IP addresses (DHCP) to each user on their network on a lease. This lease is for a set period and then the users IP address changes automatically and this can happen earlier if the user restarts their modem. That renders the stats completely useless.

A true test would be to give each retail a copy a unique code sent to the server and allow the same one to be registered multiple times. Count how many duplicates you have and you have the accurate statistics.

Their way is complete bollocks. I work for a website and we have enough trouble identifying people from IP addresses when we need to. In fact it would completely skew the statistics and it makes me think they were going out of their way to skew the figures towards piracy being rampant.

Aye i know hence why i said that the figure should be ignored :P

Blazer

I don't know.
COD4 developers stated that 80% of all COD4 games online was pirated.
He even said that if it reduced to 70% it would be a huge profit for pc devs and make it worth their while.

thebman

Stev_o wrote: »

Aye i know hence why i said that the figure should be ignored :P

But that's what the entire article is about

The 90% and how they arrived at it so it really isn't a nice article but a completely irrelevant article since it displays nothing other than the industries illogical approach to determining whether DRM is neccesary or not.